pogroms.
All this, of course, is not justification, but only one of many
explanations of the origin of pogroms during the period of the
Directorate.
Quite a different picture is displayed by the comparison of this period
of pogroms with the pogroms by Denikin's army. Here is no question of
retreat and of chaos that is connected with retreat. On the contrary,
the more successful the advance, the more organized and stronger is the
propaganda from above and the more according to plan the pogroms are
developed. If the beginning of the demoralization of the Ukrainian army
was at its tail, by Denikin's army the poison of demoralization came from
the head. As we have seen already, the Denikin officers openly declared
that they were fighting not against the Bolsheviks, but against the Jews.
To be sure, there were also in Denikin's army many persons of a purely
rapacious type. But the most horrible thing was the deeply rooted
anti-Semitism of the chiefs that surrounded Denikin, and their sadistic
hate of Jews. I, personally, am not inclined to assume that Denikin
himself wanted pogroms. Even to Denikin, in spite of his anti-Semitism,
it was impossible not to see the fatal results of pogroms for his army.
But he, too, was powerless on the question of pogroms, nor had he any
inclination to come forward in defense of the Jews.
The second characteristic feature which distinguishes the very course of
the pogroms in one area from the other consists in the fact that in
Petlura's army, we surely find cases when some individual persons or
groups succeeded in preventing or stopping pogroms. Two such cases are
cited by Temkin in his report, the other two cases are given in the
report of the Relief Committee for the Victims of Pogroms. Red Army
soldiers arranged an anti-Jewish pogrom in the city of Korosten in March
13, 1919. When the soldiers of Petlura's army which was at that time
advancing, reached the city, they stopped the pogroms. In Bila Tserkva
the Ukrainian army - having expelled in August the Denikin troops of Gen.
Shkuro and then the Red troops, who one after another plundered and
massacred the population - behaved in full dignity until in turn they
were substituted by Zeleny's bands that immediately arranged a pogrom.
Later the unfortunate town was attacked by Sokolov's bands, after which
the Ukrainian troops again succeeded in restoring order for a short time.
Lubny escaped a pogrom thanks to the fact that a hundred men were found
in the Ukrainian ranks, who with their arms stood in the way of the
pogrommakers. Fourteen of the defenders fell in the fight but the town
was saved. While reading the story about Lubny in this part of the
report, I recalled the year 1905 when a City Committee of Defense was
organized in Lubny, which also saved the city from a pogrom.
Such facts were unknown in Denikin's army. Here the "guilty" of such
patronage and defense of Jews were punished with dismissal from their
posts.
The third feature, a very disadvantageous one for Denikin's army and
government, appears as a result of the comparison of the declarations by
the Ukrainian government on the Jewish question, of laws concerning
personal-national autonomy and Jewish Communities on the one hand, with
the clauses restricting the number of Jews in educational institutions as
well as in civil and military services in Denikin's empire - on the other
hand. Here, on the part of the Ukrainian government, an effort to draw
on representatives of Jews in all levels of government posts, and over
there - in Denikin's camp - removal of Jewish officers from the army, and
of Jewish officials from district and city offices. And this - in spite
of the fact that so many Jews joined voluntarily at the very beginning
Koltchak's and Denikin's armies. And how many Jews having been brought
up with a Russian culture died for Russia that had been always a
stepmother to them? On the other hand, how small a group of us, Jews,
joined the Ukrainian movement at the beginning of the second revolution!
Of course, there was nothing strange in it. Wilson's points had been
declared but recently, and the realization of the right of
self-determination by the Ukrainian people wa such a new and fresh event
that not only the average Jewish citizen, but also the intellectuals,
with few exceptions, did not digest or understand all that had happened.
But the fact remains, Jews were represented by a very considerable number
in the ranks both of the Bolsheviks and, at the beginning, of Denikin's
army. The Ukrainian movement was joined only by a few Jews.
The representatives of Russian and Jewish capital and heavy industry were
marching hand-in-hand with the Volunteer Armies of Denikin, Yudenitch,
and Koltchak. And even after all those pogroms committed by Denikin's
army, the Jewish capitalists and industrialists followed the call of his
successor Wrangel, and joined him
Finally, one more feature out of many others that distinguish the
Ukrainian Movement from that of Denikin: An anti-Jewish pogrom was openly
carried on in Kiev in the presence of Denikin's generals, Drahomirov and
Bredov. Never did happen anything like that, wherever the Directorate
set up headquarters, neither in Kiev, nor in Vynnytsia, nor in
Kamanets-Pololsk. The Kiev population knows from bitter experience the
difference between those two regimes.
Nevertheless, in spite of all these quite essential differences, here
abroad the pogroms of the followers of Petlura are much more known than
those perpetrated by Denikin's army, although the latter numerically and
qualitatively surpassed considerably the former. This is to be explained
not only by the propaganda of the Russian groups which have old
connections and larger means in Europe and America, but also by the
incontestable fact that the first series of pogroms attracted the
greatest attention and brought forth the strongest expression of
dissatisfaction on the part of the public.
(In F. Pigido (ed.), Material Concerning Ukrainian-Jewish Relations
during the Years of the Revolution (1917-1921): Collection of Documents
and Testimonies by Prominent Jewish Political Workers, The Ukrainian
Information Bureau, Munich, 1956, pp. 48-51)
HOME DISINFORMATION 60 MINUTES 989 hits since 12Aug98
Ginsburg U.S. Court of Appeals 11Aug98 Serafyn vs. Federal Communications Commission
Serafyn also submitted evidence that "60 Minutes" had no policy against
news distortion and indeed that management considered some distortion
acceptable. For example, according to the Washington Post, Mike
Wallace, a longtime reporter for "60 Minutes," told an interviewer: "You
don't like to baldly lie, but I have."
An introduction to the United States Court of Appeals decision below can
be found in an Associated Press article by Jeannine Aversa which is on
the Ukrainian Archive.
The original of the Court of Appeals decision below can be found on the
United States Court of Appeals web site whose home page is at
www.cadc.uscourts.gov and where the decision can either be accessed by
following links from the Court of Appeals home page, or else accessed
directly at www.cadc.uscourts.gov/common/opinions/199808/95-1385a.txt.
As page numbering was not indicated in the Court of Appeals web site
version, it could not be inserted below, although page boundaries could
be inferred and are indicated below by means of horizontal lines.
The version below inserts clickable yellow CONTENTS boxes to remedy the
general problem of a reader's losing track of where he is within a large
document when reading it on screen, and to facilitate moving effortlessly
from one part of the document to another.
CONTENTS:
Title Page
I. Background
II. News Distortion
A. Evidentiary standard
B. Licensee's policy on distortion
C. Nature of particular evidence
1. Extrinsic evidence
(a) Outtakes of the interview with Rabbi Bleich
(b) The viewer letters
(c) The refusal to consult Professor Luciuk
2. Evidence of factual inaccuracies
D. Misrepresentation
III. Conclusion
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
Argued January 23, 1998 Decided August 11, 1998
No. 95-1385
Alexander J. Serafyn, et al.,
Appellants
v.
Federal Communications Commission,
Appellee
CBS Inc., et al.,
Intervenors
Consolidated with
Nos. 95-1440, 95-1608
Appeal of Orders of the
Federal Communications Commission
Arthur V. Belendiuk argued the cause and filed the briefs
for appellants. Shaun A. Maher and Donna T. Pochoday
entered appearances.
C. Grey Pash, Jr., Counsel, Federal Communications Com
mission, argued the cause for appellee, with whom Christo
pher J. Wright, General Counsel, and Daniel M. Armstrong,
Associate General Counsel, were on the brief.
Richard E. Wiley, Lawrence W. Secrest, III, James R.
Bayes, and Daniel E. Troy were on the brief for intervenors
CBS Inc. and Westinghouse Electric Corporation. John
Lane Jr., Ramsey L. Woodworth, and Robert M. Gurss
entered appearances.
Before: Ginsburg, Henderson, and Randolph, Circuit
Judges.
Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge Ginsburg.
Ginsburg, Circuit Judge: Alexander Serafyn petitioned the
Federal Communications Commission to deny or to set for
hearing the application of CBS for a new station license.
Serafyn objected that CBS was not fit to receive a license
because it had aired a news program in which it intentionally
distorted the situation in Ukraine by claiming that most
Ukrainians are anti-Semitic. The Commission summarily
denied the petition, holding that Serafyn had not submitted
enough evidence to warrant a hearing. Because the Commis
sion neither applied the correct standard nor provided a
reasoned explanation in its decision, we vacate its order and
remand the matter to the agency for further proceedings.
Serafyn also petitioned to revoke CBS's existing licenses on
the ground that CBS made a material misrepresentation to
the Commission when it gave an affiliated station false infor